ASARCO LLC v. UPRC, et al, No. 13-35356 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
ASARCO, LLC ("Asarco") appealed the district court's dismissal of its contribution action brought under section 113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). Asarco sought to recover from Union Pacific Railroad Co. and Union Pacific Corp. a share of $482 million in cleanup costs Asarco paid for environmental harm at the Coeur d'Alene Superfund Site in Northern Idaho. The district court dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that although Asarco's claim was timely, it was barred by a 2008 settlement agreement between the parties that settled Union Pacific's claims against Asarco at the same site. Upon review, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Asarco's claim was timely, but that the parties' 2008 settlement agreement did not unambiguously release Asarco's claim in this case. Therefore reversed the district court's judgment dismissing the case under Rule 12(b)(6).
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel reversed the dismissal of a mining company’s action under § 113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, seeking a share of cleanup costs paid for environmental harm at the Coeur d’Alene Superfund Site. The panel held that the mining company’s claim was not barred by CERCLA’s three-year statute of limitations for claims seeking contribution after entry of a judicially approved settlement. The panel held that even though the first amended complaint included allegations that were expressly disclaimed in the original complaint, it related back to the date of the original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B) because it arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as that set forth in the original complaint. The panel held that the original complaint was timely because Rule 6(a)’s general rule for counting time, excluding the day of the event that triggered the period, applied. The panel held that the mining company’s claim was not unambiguously barred by a prior agreement that settled the defendant’s claims against the mining company at the same site. The panel concluded that a “mutual release” provision in the parties’ settlement agreement did not unambiguously release the claim in this case.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.